Stefan Lindskog is a respected Swedish jurist and lawyer who currently sits on Sweden’s Supreme Court, and who has served as the president of the Swedish Bar Association from 2004 to 2007. For him to weigh in on Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, and Julian Assange, is as if Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the US Supreme Court were to have offered comments on the case; their professional and intellectual attainments are similarly impressive.

In the video above, filmed on April 3 of this year, Justice Lindskog delivers the keynote lecture for a program and panel discussion called “The Assange Affair”, which was held at the University of Adelaide in Australia. While he makes it clear (around 33 minutes into his talk) that his remarks are informal in nature, the mere fact that he is speaking out at all, much less so strongly criticizing the way the Swedish criminal justice system has handled the case, is quite suggestive. Taken with the fact that in March, prosecutor Marianne Ny quit or was forced out and replaced by another prosecutor, even as Anna Ardin (who Justice Lindskog refers to by name) fired her lawyer, Justice Lindskog’s remarks are yet another indication that the case against Assange may be falling apart. It may well be that the Swedish authorities are seeing if they can make this embarrassing case go away without causing more of a furor.

* Justice believes there are not any formal US charges against Assange.
* He presents the case from the point of view of the Swedish police report obtained from–if I understand him correctly– leaked Polish [intelligence?] documents (!9:00ff)
* The leaking of the police report was a crime.
* The leaking was not prosecuted because of the privilege granted to sources of the press.
* Assange was defamed in the press.
* Hypothetically, if the women have told the truth, the case is entirely based on the use of condoms. How legally binding was that conditionality?
* Would a lie about a condom be charged as a sexual crime? If one lies about having HIV, no. It’s charged as assault.
* Two courts have held that there’s probable cause for sexual molestation (I believe this is also called “minor rape“).
* Swedish law forbids extradition for political offenses or if there is a reasonable fear that someone could be punished for political offenses as a consequences.
* The UK court did not try the merits of the case against Assange.
* Extradition to US: extradition is only possible if Swedish courts would charge the offense.
* It is debatable whether Swedish law would regard Assange’s leaks as treason or espionage
* Source privilege is protective only for business secrets, not military secrets.
* Still, Sweden’s enemies may not be America’s.
* Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done.

Finally, isn’t it interesting that you who are now reading this are probably only finding about this April lecture via this very blog diary? So strange that something so intimately connected to the cases of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, who have replaced Jimmy Carter and Al Gore in the US media’s eyes as History’s Greatest Monsters, was never mentioned by the mainstream US press, normally so hungry for the tiniest tidbits about these two.

Marianne Ny is still leading the investigation. The swedish newspaper Expressen is reporting.http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/borgstrom-petas-i-assange-fallet/
“- Not true. Ingrid has gone into the investigation instead of the Assistant inquiry leader, who has left the agency and went to another post., It is not so dramatic and Marianne Ny is thus still investigator responsible for the case, says Britta von Schoultz, Press Officer of the Authority to Expressen.”

So, to sum up, Lindskog doesn’t know or say a whole lot, he agrees the prosecution is legitimate under Swedish law, there are no US charges and Ny is still the prosecutor.

Uh, Lindskog admitted he did not know the established facts of case, only what he had seen on the internet. So, if you have a complaint about that depiction, perhaps you should take it up with Lindskog.

hotdog believes almost nothing the US government says because it is a lying, rule-of-law subverting, secretly run, military industrial congressional cabal. and that goes for its complicit, toady partners.

See there Mr. Presididn’t, when you coin terms like “extra-legal,” convene secret courts, and tell everyone they don’t have the need to know what kind of unethical, illicit shit you’re doing, all the while stuffing tubes up human-beings noses to keep them from dying and embarrassing you, you pretty much corrode the entire system. Assange should trust the Swedish government, WHY?

Julian Assange and Ed Snowden should just throw themselves into the maw of the empire because hey, that’s what Jack Sparrow did. Pirate honor and all that.

How many times do people have to see a CIA scam played out before them before they can tell one from a British Tabloid exclusive?

And this Peasant agrees with Hot Dog completely on believing anything the little Government says to the big Government of People.

The Karl Rove connections still haven’t been fleshed out and I am saddened that they haven’t. We know that Rove had conversations and a special friendship with someone in authority of the Swedish Justice Ministry. Why that person has not been investigated or called upon to speak about this is seriously a failure of Swedish Authorities. Of course, we in the US know how those Justice Department types behave.

“JULIAN Assange’s mum has told a Byron Bay crowd that claims by a leading Swedish judge visiting Australia that it was unlikely that his country could legally extradite her son to the USA were rubbish.

She described the judge’s visit as merely a PR exercise to improve Sweden’s image which had suffered due to the country’s treatment of Julian. ”

I have read all the trial and appellate decisions in the UK and critical supporting documents. Between the lower court, High Court and Supreme Court they completely discredit every facet of Assange’s bogus claims about the Swedish prosecution and fear of US extradition. As to “rants” everything I have said here came straight from your colleague’s own words, that you cited with approval and directly supported links to official statements by the Swedish Prosecution Authority.

The propaganda masters of the Pentagon enjoy framing their secret enemies, with phony sex charges. For the record, these persons are all adults and nobody complained until Julian Assange became a secret enemy of the USA. Also, the second lady in question, invited Assange into her bed after sharing notes with the first lady in question. Of course, nothing good can come from two girl friends at the same time, except the sex.

It is an American tradition, targeted fascism using alleged sex crimes, for instance, against Jack Johnson and Chuck Berry. In fact, both these victims of American justice should have received pardons long ago.

Ah, PW, that wasn’t bmaz using the term “rant”. Forgive the choice of words, as opposed to, say, jeremiad. The mention of the good psychiatrist’s essay was merely to illustrate that there was on-line pushback even before the judge gave his speech.

The Daily Kos article was cited as merely one example (“e.g.”). A search turns up a lot of other on-line stories, mostly in early April.

However, that’s the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, not the Disney outlet.

The Justice may have said nice things about Assange in his speech. Obama says nice things. W may have said some nice things, if anyone could interpret them.

Assange and Snowden and Manning aren’t the issue anyway, no matter one’s opinion of them, other than their prosecution or persecution being a way of intimidating anyone thinking of following in their footsteps.

It’s the creepy crawly things that were under the rocks that they turned over that matter. The sadder thing is that there is so little mainstream media discussion of that.

Julian’s mum Christine may have the best judgment, following Mulder and Scully — trust no one.

And FWIW, your original post on this topic is certainly appreciated. I hadn’t even heard of this Australian media event before today, and possibly others too will be motivated to learn more.

Assange, Manning, and Snowden have become a holy trinidy of truth. The biggest story is not the story they told, but the actions of other nations in support of the US acting out illegal activities against them, such as the downing of Morales’s plane. It has shown that there are no longer independent countries, but puppet states of the US empire. Being a working person, I am more in line with the countries and individuals that defies this empire. As long as we are an empire, the people will never have any rights. Muslim terrorists may just be miss directed allies in a fight against the empire that uses me like a slave.

Wheel’sconing off. This is part of the fasl-out of the US forcing down Morales’s plane. The Europeans have been doing the diplomatic gig a lot longer than the Americans, and know bullshit. As to Sweden, a coule of years ago I had an odd conversation with a Swedish academic who is a member of the highestvplaced Swedish po,itical family (several prime ministers) who told me he would never step foot in the US for political reasons.

As to the charges, it was a set-up that the conservative Swedish government acceded to thinking there would be no fallout. We.., there was fallout. Obama’s government is a clusterfuck. Let’s hope he doesn’t get us all incinerated.

“Nothing I say should be taken as denigrating the complainants, the genuineness of their feelings of regret, to trivialise their experience or to challenge whether they felt Assange’s conduct was disrespectful, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing the boundaries of what they felt comfortable with.”

If is all a set up, why would Assange’s own lawyer, with Assange at his side, state on the record for the court that such is not the case?

The lawyer’s statement is still not an admission of guilt. Sex can often be unpleasurable and regretful even if it is consentual, especially if it is during a hookup. It is most rewarding between commited couples, but that is abnormal behavior for a lawyer. The three major positions for legal representation is to deny, deny, and to deny. It either proves Assange’s guilt, or he has a certain sinsetivity. On determining which it is, we would have to compare actual testimony. Even then, it could have been a misunderstanding by all parties.
If the Swedish government is truly interested in prosecuting him on sexual issues, they should offer him immunity from the wikileaks issue, so he can face the music of proper justice. Until that happens, the case looks like a facade for US prosecution. If Assange refuses, then the world would know that Assange is using the Wikileaks issue to protect himself from sex crimes.

Yes, thank you. I read it fully the first time. I have a better idea, why don’t YOU read the relevant documents and opinions in the UK extradition hearing, High Court appeal and Supreme Court appeal. If you did, you would know that the last paragraph you refer to is a pile of bunk. Specific findings have been made about the nature of “charges”, the due process and procedure of the Swedish criminal justice system and the necessity of interview in custody within the jurisdiction of Sweden. Or, alternatively, you can keep biting off on bullshit because it pleases you and confirms you mistaken and false paradigms. By all means, press on.

Those tall things with leaves or needles on them (in the summer more so than winter) are trees.

A collection of all of THOSE, is a forest.

Trees are magnificent, but if you find yourself racing from one to another to examine some fascinating bark here and some beautiful limb structure there, you’re likely to end up lost in the woods, or eaten by the goddamned big bad wolf.

Facts are NOT trees, they are facts. And 95% of the conversation about Assange is either devoid or, or ignorant of, the actual facts.

Ny has been removed as prosecutor!! No, she hasn’t.

There are no charges!! Yes, charges for extradition have to be specified, Ny filed an affidavit and it was accepted as sufficient indicia of the putative charges by every level of UK and international court to consider it. Formal charges in the Swedish criminal court are, by their criminal procedure, not filed until the individual is standing before the court, but there are charges specified.

Assang should be “interviewed at the Ecuadoran embassy”!! No, the remaining “interview” left to be done is the one done as part of the charging process before the Swedish criminal court which, as aforestated, requires Assange’s physical in personam presence before the court. That is the whole purpose of the warrant.

It goes on and on and on. But, hey, the bullshit peddled by Assange is so much more fun, why bother with facts?

Who cares, or are you just one of those that thinks sex crimes and rape are no big deal and should not be prosecuted? From women that even Assange’s own lawyer admits are honest and valid complainants not to be taken lightly. That is a sick perspective.

Yeah, who cares that a guy can be financially ransacked and detained (for going on 3 years) on a charge based on hearsay?

Who cares that the US government is salivating to get their hands on him and that same government incarcerates, puts in solitary confinement, and tortures people on a regular basis for political reasons.

Who cares the US government calls secret committees “due process” and keeps people who haven’t even been able to confront their accusers for over ten years in legal and physical limbo indefinitely and even straps them down, thrusts tubes up their noses and denies them the dignity of killing themselves to escape the injustice?

Your outrage is as phony as the pretense being used to try and get Assange into custody.

I think it’s easy to understand bmaz. A lifelong lawyer who’s seen the rule of law pretty much disappear in his own country, it’s easy to understand why one would cling to actual current examples of it’s existence elsewhere.

Switzerland has acted lawfully here. That’s not to say, which is one point the good jurist in the above post made, is not to say they acted “ethically.”

Were they intimidated into filing “lawful” charges that they in other circumstances might not have? I think that’s a fair supposition given that the prosecutor did initially deny to pursue them. Was this possible intimidation from the US? Again, that’s an entirely fair supposition.

But as far as facts and the law go, they have technically followed it, and this appears to be all that bmaz cares about. At least, that would again be a fair supposition from his comments.

For me, the number one fact (and I have no links, going by memory, so perhaps this fact is wrong too) is that supposedly the government of Ecuador offered to give Assange up to Sweden if they agreed that he would not be extradited to the US, and the Swedish government refused, which again, is fair to bring the supposition that the conservative Swedish government’s real reason for wanting Assange is to turn him over to the US.

In order to have a world where the rule of law is valid, justice must not only be dispensed, it must be SEEN by it’s citizens as having been dispensed. It is this murky area where ethics become important and where bmaz may be ignoring.

Reply anytime hotdog, it’s always very good to see your fonts. I’m afraid your point is lost on me here though.

On the chance neither of us returns to help me understand it better, I will just say that I found the jurist’s speech to be a vigorous defense of not what’s just legal or lawful, but what’s right.

I thought he made points about whistleblowing in general and Assange specifically that were refreshing, especially from someone in his position.

And I liked the “messages” he was sending to those in attendance especially (this was a forum of journalists IIRC) when he spoke about the area between “technically legal” and “ethical” where something may be legal, but that doesn’t mean it’s ethical, and that state’s interested in a valid rule of law should always remember that distinction and journalists covering them should remind them of it.

It was as if he were saying “What Switzerland has done here is completely legal, but it sure does stink, especially if it’s because of outside influence (the other’s enemies may not be Sweden’s enemies remark), and I want you future journalists to be aware of and discuss the difference and be dogged in your reporting because true justice demands it (the justice must be SEEN remark).”

I got the feeling he feels Assange (and Bradley Manning) were true whistleblowers deserving of protection and that what Sweden and the US governments have done have been unjust, even if lawful. I mean, it sounded like he went as far as one in his position could go toward saying that directly without saying it.

Legal and lawful mean nothing if their ends are unjust. An unjust state will make unjust laws. And sometimes, even a well meaning state will have just laws abused in ways that are unjust. And when that happens, it’s up to the press to play it’s role in ensuring that true justice is done, not just legal justice.

I dunno, maybe I misunderstood his whole speech or perhaps should watch it again, but that’s kinda what I took from it. Perhaps if he read FDL he would poke in here and tell me how wrong I’ve got it, but I’m guessing he doesn’t read FDL.

Oh, btw my friend hotdog, may I bother you with an OT question (not sure who else to ask)

I was reading here today, I’m almost positive it was here, in the comments section and someone said something along the lines of this:

“We’ve learned recently that the MSM has been told that propaganda is now their job.”

Not word for word, but something like that. With no link, because it was not even part of the particular discussion or topic of the thread, but man that got me going and I’ve searched and well, do you know what this might reference??? I can’t even find the damn comment here again, so maybe it wasn’t here, but I could’ve sworn it was. Damn memory just gets worse and worse.

As to my point earlier, I think the Justice Lindskog totally gets it, but he can’t come out and say directly the US government and its corporate handlers will use any dirty trick it can to accomplish its military goals and keep its record of lying and manipulation a secret.

Welcome to FDL

Sign in with Facebook or Google+

OR use your MyFDL username

Toolbox

MyFDL is Firedoglake's community site. Anyone can participate by commenting on posts or joining groups to find other people in your area. Content posted to MyFDL is the opinion of the author alone, and should not be attributed to Firedoglake.